present at the scene of the accident and instead learns of the accident from a third party‚ the prior knowledge learned of the accident serves as a buffer against the full-fledged impact of observing the accident scene. Disposition: Order affirmed. Legal Rationale: Plaintiffs argues recovery under the “reasonably Foreseeability” test‚ which would allow a Plaintiff outside the “Zone of Danger” to recover‚ which was adopted in Sinn v. Burd‚ 486 Pa. 146 (1979). The Court stated in response that the
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff
Class 3 Anti-trust Laws Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare. NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself”
Premium Major League Baseball Cartel Trust
Case Name: Maryland v. King (October 2012) Facts: Maryland police arrested a man named Alonzo Jay King‚ in 2009 for first and second degree assault charges and booked into the Wicomico County‚ Maryland‚ facility‚ where booking personnel took a cheek swab (“buccal swab”) to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA collection Act. The swab was matched up to an unsolved 2003 rape case. The police had collected the 2003 DNA sample from the rape victim who underwent a sexual assault forensic exam
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
said that even though Cindy landed near a flowerbed he did not know there were bricks in the yard. Koppersmith was charged with murder and convicted of reckless manslaughter. On appeal The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back to the trial court because Koppersmith was denied the right to testify about his intentions. He went to retrial and was convicted of reckless manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction to the Alabama Court
Premium Jury Appeal Court
This suit would be covered under the tort of negligence. The first thing to consider if there was a duty of care owed to Steve by either the manufacturer or the Health Club because he could potentially be able to sue both of them. In both cases yes‚ a duty of care is owed to him‚ because the manufacture has a responsibility to ensure that safety of the equipment that they produce. Even though the manufacturer did not have any direct contact with the final consumer‚ there is commercial relationship
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
Ann. Section(s) 19-12-101‚ the "criminal attempt" statute‚ the trial court affirmed the juvenile court order and sentenced the girl to the Department of Youth development for an indefinite period. The issue in this case is to determine whether the defendant ’s action in this case constitute a "substantial step" toward the commission of second degree murder under the new statue. The "substantial step" issue has not yet been
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County United States Court of Appeals‚ Ninth Judicial District 499 F3d 553 (2009) MOORE‚ Presiding Judge Rule of Law: The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) and the First Amendment rights were brought into question by the Plaintiffs. The judges ruled out the violation of the First Amendment rights and focused on the Privacy Protection Act as the main claimed offense. FACTS: Steve Hindi is the founder of S.H.A.R.K‚ a non-profit corporation that exposes
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
that the testator’s name be subscribed at the end of the will by some other person‚ in the testator’s presence and at his direction. In order to make a valid will‚ the testator must strictly comply with the provisions for formal execution. In this case there is no way of knowing that the decedent’s failure to sign was a mistake or not. DISPOSITION: The lower courts determination of invalidity is affirmed. COMMENTS: It is evident that the will was not signed by the decedent and in accordance
Premium Law Common law Sign
BRIEFING A CASE EXAMPLE Student Name: Class: Case Number: PATTERSON V. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164 (1989) FACTS: Patterson‚ a black female‚ worked for the McLean Credit Union as a teller and file coordinator for ten years. Patterson alleges that when she was first interviewed for her job‚ the supervisor‚ who later became the president of McLean Credit Union‚ told her that she would be working with all white women and they probably would not like working with her because she
Premium United States Race Black people